High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vijay Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Min. Of Revenue 13 Thru' Secy. Lkw. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 12674 of 2004  RD-AH 184 (31 March 2004)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8.12.2003 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur (respondent no. 2) in so far as it relates to award of punishment of withholding one annual increment and adverse entry to the petitioner and also for quashing the order dated 4.5.2002 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Saharanpur (respondent no. 4) awarding him the punishment of withholding of his three annual increments and recording of adverse entry in his service book.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the Head Clerk in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur. Some vacancies for the post of Amin/Ahalmad had fallen vacant which were to be filled up by promotion of the eligible candidates in Class IV category of the employees in the office. Vide D.O. letters dated 8.7.1997 and 29.8.1997 the Collector, Saharanpur sought direction from the Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow (respondent no. 3) in regard to the process of granting promotion. In response, he was informed by letter dated 3.9.1997 that he (the Collector) was himself the appointing authority of Amins and he could proceed for promotion as laid down under Rule 16 of the U.P. Bhumi Arjan (Rajaswa Vibhag Amin Sewa) Niyamawali, 1993. The Collector thereafter constituted a Selection Committee, which recommended the names of Sarvashri Raj Kumar and Anil Kumar (Chainman) for grant of promotion to the post of Amin/Ahalmad. The Collector and the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the aforesaid two candidates/promotees started working on the promotional post of Amin/Ahalmad.
It appears that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging that there was ban on all appointments/promotional posts and as such the selection/promotion process could not have been initiated and this fact was not brought to the notice of the members of the Selection Committee by the petitioner. The City Magistrate, Saharanpur was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet and was called upon to submit his written explanation within 15 days of the receipt of charge sheet containing four charges. After completion of the enquiry and having considered the explanation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer/City Magistrate recommended the following punishments to the petitioner: -
1. Withholding of three annual increments
2. Recording of adverse entry in the service book
The Collector issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and he submitted his reply. The Collector by order dated 4.5.2002 approved the punishment of withholding of his three annual increments and recording of adverse entry in his service book as was recommended by the Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishments the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (respondent no. 2) who reduced the punishment of withholding of three annual increments to only one increment but maintained the punishment of recording of adverse entry in his service book.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Raj Dev Singh, the then Special Land Acquisition Officer was also awarded censure entry though the charges levelled against him were similar to him. The Commissioner has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and now only one increment has been withheld. However, the Commissioner has maintained the punishment of adverse entry in his service book. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not be fastened with any liability, as the Collector was the appointing authority who had promoted the two appointees in spite of ban on promotions.
This argument is fallacious as selection process was initiated at the instance of the petitioner on his report and he cannot escape from his misconduct on the ground that he is innocent. The Collector and thereafter the Commissioner on appeal have already taken a lenient view. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders requiring interference by this Court in exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.